Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete this content, per the consensus below that the content should be removed. The issue then becomes the target for the redirect, as there is some support below for a redirect. At this time, I will create a protected soft redirect to Wiktionary, per the larger number of people supporting that target. The talk page of the article may be used to discuss whether this is the correct target or not (especially given that it seems the wiktionary entry may be deleted in the near future). ÷seresin 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger

edit
AfDs for this article:
Greenfinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The few sources generally use the term 'greenfinger' in quotes (or not even this exactly e.g. 'green finger'), suggesting that this is not an accepted term. They generally only use it only once. This term would fail to make a dictionary by a long long way. And wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources are all from 2008 onward. Wikipedia is not the news. No temporal coverage, a detailled look at the sources suggests this term is part of a fleeting news story involving a couple of people and the action of putting iron filings into the ocean. To make an article on this term, which has got so little coverage is nonsensical. Ultimately notability criteria is based on what wikipedians think is notable and the fact that this article has been nominated for deletion for the third time (first time successfully and second time a mixed reaction) suggests that wikipedians do not think this article should remain. Polargeo (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I missing something? Why would we want to protect either an article that shouldn't be here or a redirect to the wrong/poor definition of the word in wictionary. Surely we can protect if needed after deletion, but this may not be necessary. Polargeo (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt, simply a journalistic attention grabber term. Vsmith (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt (a nice new !vote kind). Not much to say that hasn't been said already. WP is not a dictionary. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is much expanded from a dicdef. Although it's quite new, it will get used more as geoeng grows as a discipline. But what does it matter what anyone thinks? This will evidently get renominated every month or so until the destructive, pro-deletion crowd gets its way. Let's just celebrate that they've picked on a relatively minor article - it could have been so much worse... Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt "it will get used more as geoeng grows as a discipline" is evidence itself for the lack of current notability. When it is notable, it will deserve an article, saying it "will be" notable is evidence that it is not, currently, notable and per WP:CRYSTAL should not have an article. This is simply a buzz word that fails WP:NEO in that while there are mentions of this word being used, there is no in-depth treatment of the term itself, so a clear delete. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons I gave as nom in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenfinger (2nd nomination). Previous AfD was closed as transwiki. Article was then speedy deleted as WP:A5, and author complained to deleting admin, who restored it. The article, after cleaning up, contains a definition and a couple of uses in the press. This is a dictionary definition of a neologism, and is not encyclopedic in nature. The references provided are not about the use of the word, they use the word. Author has had plenty of time to improve the article, and has not been able to do so. As the article has already been transwikied, I request this now be deleted. -Atmoz (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to reconsider in the previous AFD discussion. I've been asked to visit this AFD discussion to reconsider. My opinion remains the same. Andrewjlockley's copying and pasting some of the content from Geoengineering#Lack of global control into this article didn't change my mind then, and hasn't changed my mind now. As I said, it has only served to make it clearer that this is a duplicate article that should be a redirect to that very section, where a nonce name is discussed in the proper context of the actual subject that surrounds that nonce name. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect per reasons given above. Ohms law (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the fact that this isn't even the most common use of the word (try googling). The other uses of the word are also too minor/ambiguous to put in a dictionary, or have an encyclopedic article, but they are all not as minor as this use. Uses include company names, products, a book (novel), an enviornmental campaign, media use of the word with the meaning 'someone who is an environmental campaigner/champion'). Therefore a soft redirect at present will still be misleading, giving this very minor use of the word unrealistic precedence over other uses that also don't merit an article.Polargeo (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The easy, and (to me) obvious, answer to that problem is to create a disambiguation page (if the problem occurs). Why worry about theoretical problems in the middle of an AfD discussion, though? Ω (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why this shouldn't be deleted — from first principles.
    1. ) AfD is not for making judgments about the current content of the article. It's for evaluating the article's potential. See WP:BEFORE.
    2. ) Therefore, the current content of the article is irrelevant if it can be fixed.
    3. ) It follows that you should !vote delete if, and only if, you consider this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia.
    4. ) Most of the above !votes are about problems with the current content (e.g. it focuses on a minor use of the word). The current state of the article is a complete red herring. Said !votes are therefore defective and should be disregarded.
    5. ) The argument that it's a likely search term remains unrefuted.
    6. ) The argument that a soft redirect to Wiktionary is entirely appropriate remains unrefuted.
  • Therefore by weight of the current arguments, this article should not be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The votes above for delete by many experienced editors conclude that the article cannot be fixed to wikipedia standard. It appears to be you alone who thinks it is a likely search term. I have already refuted that a soft redirect is appropriate (see above). A transwiki from the first Afd has left the wikipedia editor Andrewjlockley's own definition of the word (not supported by refs, which are inadequate to even define this word properly) in wictionary. This should never have happened and is the result of an attempt to please and be inclusionist to the detriment of wikipedia, and wiktionary for that matter. Polargeo (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only Andrewjlockley's saying to keep it as an article. As far as I'm concerned, the question is whether it should be a redlink or a redirect. (Uncle G makes a strong argument for an internal redirect, and other very experienced editors have argued for a soft redirect to Wiktionary.)

        The above reply remains focused on concerns about the current state of the Wiktionary article, and I have already shown this is an error. We should focus on the potential state of the Wiktionary article.

        "Greenfinger" is a likely search term, not because of the very minor use upon which Andrewjlockley and Uncle G's remarks are erroneously focused, but because of its presence in a very well-known and highly notable figure of speech.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Okay. Even though I think that at present a delete is the best option (and I still believe this) as this term does not merit either wikipedia or wiktionary inclusion in any form. I feel obliged to say that my second preference would be a disambig page (possibly protected if necessary). This is to avoid a redirect (either internal or soft wiktionary) that gives undue bias to a minor use of this minor/poorly defined term.Polargeo (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • By the way the presence of 'greenfinger' in the well known figure of speech you suggest is not true. It is 'green fingers' and this already exists in most dictionaries as the UK version of the US 'green thumb'. 'Greenfinger' is an as yet undefinable corruption of this phrase used in company names, campaigns, quotations (such as in this case) that do not merit inclusion on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Absolutely. "Greenfinger" is a plausible misspelling or misinterpretation of the English phrase "green fingers". (I didn't know they had a dialect version in American, actually.) This misspelling or misinterpretation is a much more likely search term than any reference to eccentric ecologically-minded billionaires.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, now that's a fairly convincing argument right there (for deletion, or at least change to a redirect of some sort). It's structured more around WP:NEOLOGISM, or something very close to it, is all. Ω (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think a likely misspelling is a very convincing reason for having a redirect.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A redirect to what? 'green fingers'? Nobody has even missed the lack of the article Green fingers, let alone the need for a redirect for a supposed common misspelling of this phrase. Do we need to create articles for soft redirects to every wiktionary phrase and then make redirects for what we imagine might be common misspellings of these phrases? This is not a common misspelling, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM. Polargeo (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree, greenfingers and/or green fingers on average get less than 10 views/searches per day (with the exception of when its AfD'd), so it is rather implausible as a common search term. We are not Google, but an encyclopedia. So my !vote is still delete and salt. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Geoengineering#Lack of global control where the topic is discussed in it's proper context. Looking at the sources I don't think anything could be written that is more than a basic dictionary definition without linking material together in a way that would amount to synthesis. In the - maybe near - future sources may properly cover the topic, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and at the moment sufficient coverage does not appear to be available to write anything that would expand upon what is now already in the main Geoengineering article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that the quote is covered in Geoengineering#Lack of global control in its proper context but that is all it is, a couple of quotes from a media story last fall attempting to make a new word (we have pretty much covered this already in this AfD). To make a redirect based on a protologism is nonsense. The chances of anyone searching for 'Greenfinger' in this context are non existant when you realise that the couple of recorded uses of the word have to describe what it means. The very few people who might mistakenly (or otherwise) put 'greenfinger' into wikipedia would be extremely puzzeled to find themselves at Geoengineering#Lack of global control. Polargeo (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh, redirects are cheap. If someone accidentally types anything in when they don't know what it is surely they will by default be surprised to find where it takes them? Someone mistakenly typing in Green Thumbs would no doubt be surprised to find themselves at List of Beavis and Butt-head episodes. Just the fact that this is the third nomination of the page means it might be good to have something pointing at the content. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the third AfD due to editorial battles with an editor who has obviously been difficult to reason with. The redirect to section you suggest would itself be a candidate for deletion per reason 7 in Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_deleting. Polargeo (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • A soft redirect to Greenfinger in wiktionary could also contravene a couple of points in The Redirect for discussion guiding principles and be deleted. Ultimately neither of these redirects add any benefit to users of Wikipedia and are only likely to create confusion. Lets be bold and deal with this now rather than keeping this mess. Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still don't see the particular advantage of having a potential redlink rather than a redirect when you agree that the information that would be covered under the title is present in its correct context elsewhere. It would reduce the chance of someone reading one of the articles linked and creating a duplicate, a reason to avoid deleting. Guest9999 (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nonsense. Read this AfD discussion first, then I urge anyone to read the link given by Guest9999, please read all 5 reasons not to delete carefully and consider. There is no reason to not delete this article (or potential redirect). What is this drive with editors to avoid redlinks like they are demons? I am completely and utterly baffled as to why editors wish to hold on to every word or inconceivable misspelling or synonym or protologism that Wikipedia can get its hands on like it is somehow sacred, even if it messes up wikipedia and makes a mockery of it. Polargeo (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's clear to me that I do not feel anywhere nearly as strongly about this as you and maybe that is because my reasoning is weaker. I just think that it is possible that somebody will at some point want information on the topic and if we have it I don't see why they shouldn't be directed to it. Even if it is only a handful of people looking for information why inconvenience them? I don't really see how a redirect messes up Wikipedia but given the strength of opinion in this discussion and as I don't see it being a particularly big deal either way then delete. Guest9999 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is entirely possible that the term catches on and, if it does, we should then have an article for it. For now, the tentativeness of use and the fact that these 'greenfingers' are posited for the future, suggests that the word is a protologism that may or may not exist in the future. Neither the article nor a redirect should exist. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1297508145"